The church of SM physics

Quote from RobertBryant

"renormalization was a kludge and ,,the Standard Model is a patchwork-quilt Frankensetin’s monster of a theory.

Thanks Robert. I fixed the Frankensetin!

Quote from Mark U

Can beams of light experience "interference" in an experiment without matter being involved (except at the source of emission of the light and at the detector)?

I don't think so. Because of this I think Mills has it right.

Yes. It's called gamma-gamma pair production. Light interacts with light. I wrote an article about it: http://physicsdetective.com/how-pair-production-works/

Quote from Mark U

Well, tell me where light on light interference occurs in the absence of matter.

In the dual slit experiment.

Quote from JohnDuffield

Yes. It's called gamma-gamma pair production. Light interacts with light. I wrote an article about it: http://physicsdetective.com/how-pair-production-works/

OK. But this pair production happens in matter - which can recoil - so there is conservation of momentum.

Quote

In the dual slit experiment.

The dual slit experiment of course requires material slits.

I've done more reading, and I must alter my view somewhat. There is some evidence that there can be very small photon on photon interaction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

Needless to say, this photon - photon interaction is not close to the strength of the photon - matter interaction which produces the bands in the double slit experiment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

This is a vixra published paper not surprisingly because it has all the intellectual rigor of Brexiteer arguments in the UK pre-referendum.

And it has equally as strong an emotional appeal - hence will convince many.

It proceeds through:

1) Viewing theoretically necessary higher order corrections as fudge factors.

Absurd when they come from the theory and were predicted from the start - just not calculated until needed. That "not calculated till needed" aspect is seen as evidence of fraud (yes, fraud - ridiculous and far-fetched) by the author. However given the difficulty of any such calculations it is only what you would expect. Who would spend two years full time work just to make a correction in a value that is expected to be well within experimental error and therefore untestable?

2) Arguing that so many Feynman diagrams seem over-complex.

Agreed, and in the recent discovery of the amplitudehedron we have found must faster techniques to calculate the exact same answer from FDs. That is still not understood, and maybe when it is some deeper mathermatical structure will emerge that makes much of the current calculation horriblemess go away. Where I don't agree, and the amplitudehedron bears this out, is that there is therefore anything wrong with the theory. Why no mention in this paper of that? It is new research centrally relevant to any argument based on FD complexity.

3) Criticising modern QED based on its early history.

Very few scientific theories emerge in correct entirety at first, they proceed through muddle, errors that almost work, argument.

4) Criticising QED based on its relationship to QM

That is just dinosaur-like behaviour. Sure, QM is counter-intuitive. But as we understand it more, so we see that the counterintuitive yet consistent and very beautiful elements underlie all of physics as we know it. That spacetime and GR can be derived from quantum entanglement is the great scientific discovery we are currently living through. In any case, philosophically, requiring physics to be intuitive is unjustified. Why should all scales of interaction look like our evolutionary relevant spatial interactions with a macroscopic environment? Of course they need not. GR shows they do not at large scale, QM shows they do not at small scale.

5) Criticising QM based on a dissatisfaction with renormalisation

This is something I can agree with. Renormalisation at the level of ignoring infinities "just because it works" is highly unsatisfactory. But for a long time now we have a better understanding of renormalisation which is mathematically rigorous.

Great short pop link which captures the essense of this: as mathematiciens have understood for 100 years in analysis, it is all about taking limits in a well founded way. Possible, but rigor requires care and proper maths.

https://www.volkerschatz.com/science/renorm.html

The proper mathematical treatment of renormalisation as regularisation was not formulated till 1995 (Weinburg).

The big no-no about Consa's paper is the lack of a proper literature review beyond 1970. If he had done this he would at least mention regularisation, as a way to understand fully renormalisation, spacetime generation from QM as evidence that however counter-intiuitive QM might be, it is fundamental to the universe, etc, etc.

The sad fact is that those mavericks who look back to old semi-classical models of physics because they reject modern physics (normally from a visceral dislike of QM and a het of the complexity of QED calculations) selectively cite evidence from 1970 onwards, omitting the stuff that backs these theories and misrepresenting other things (like the timing of higher order calculations).

I get pretty annoyed at it. When Consa calls large numbers of other scientists fraudulent he is behaving very badly. When he publishes popular summaries like this he is being intellectually dishonest, and showing poor scholarship, at the very least.

He is also putting young minds off thinking about the incredibly exciting developments now happening in theoretical physics, all based on QM and the SM. It is these things, unifying QM and GR, that have the capability, eventually, of giving us much better understanding of all the SM symmetries and results, with a better underlying model.

What is a shame, is throwing away half of the stuff that works, and also that has shown itself capable of making fundamental predictions, because you either cannot be bothered to read, or do not understand, the last 30 years of physics.

Display More

Hi,

I'm the author of the paper. First of all I would like to thank you for your comments, all criticisms are welcome. I am sorry for the delay in answering, but I have had problems registering in the forum.

The entire history of QED is extremely suspicious. My accusations are many and very serious. I cannot prove them all, but at least I make two explicit accusations very easy to verify:

a) Both the original Kroll & Karplus calculation and the Petermann correction of the Feynman diagram IIc are secret.

b) The calculation of the 17,8 Ry Bethe's fudge factor is also secret.

I hope someone is able to prove me wrong. At first glance it seems like a simple task.

Quote from oliverconsa

The calculation of the 17,8 Ry

Thanks Oliver..I appreciate your elan and thoroughness

Here is an oid testimony from Hans

But no mention of 17.8

Also a positiive spin....https://www.ias.ac.in/public/Volumes/reso/010/10/0033-0048.pdf

But no mention of 17.8

"

or a historical perspective on how Bethe zoomed in
(like a homing pigeon) on a non-relativistic treatment,
the interested reader is referred to Dyson's narrative [2]
on how Bethe's previous training and experience led him
to the right answer, without being led astray by irrelevant details!

But perhaps time spent on better .. more predictive models is more useful

Check your email

QED has little predictive use since 1947 ..lets support better models

Let old dogs rest

Quote from Mark U

OK. But this pair production happens in matter - which can recoil - so there is conservation of momentum.

The dual slit experiment of course requires material slits.

I've done more reading, and I must alter my view somewhat. There is some evidence that there can be very small photon on photon interaction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

Needless to say, this photon - photon interaction is not close to the strength of the photon - matter interaction which produces the bands in the double slit experiment.

Display More

No Mark, the photon-photon interaction is really strong. It's the interaction that makes an electron stay an electron. It;s also the interaction that makes a proton stay a proton. We have good scientific evidence that the electron is a photon interacting with itself, and so is the proton:

Annihilation images from CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility

See Louis de Broglie;s 1923 letter on waves and quanta published in Nature. That’s where he said “the wave is tuned with the length of the closed path”. The electron is just a light wave in a closed path. So is the proton. That's why it's the wave nature of matter. And that's why light interacts with matter. Because it's really light interacting with light.

Quote from oliverconsa

Hi,

I'm the author of the paper. First of all I would like to thank you for your comments, all criticisms are welcome. I am sorry for the delay in answering, but I have had problems registering in the forum.

The entire history of QED is extremely suspicious. My accusations are many and very serious. I cannot prove them all, but at least I make two explicit accusations very easy to verify:

a) Both the original Kroll & Karplus calculation and the Petermann correction of the Feynman diagram IIc are secret.

b) The calculation of the 17,8 Ry Bethe's fudge factor is also secret.

I hope someone is able to prove me wrong. At first glance it seems like a simple task.

Display More

Hi Oliver. I think your paper is great. It is forensic physics at its finest. I'm doing a physics detective article on it. You will like it.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The question is which part of any particle acquire mass under what concrete binding relation. The electron mediates gravitation as a consequence a (small) part of it has no gravitational mass. The question is only important for experiments where people e.g. do measure elements weight with a balance! (e.g. a big bottle with 4-He).

Sorry Wyttenbach, I don't know what you mean here.

But can I offer this: a 511keV photon has no rest mass because it isn't at rest. But if it's interacting with itself it goes round and round in a closed path, then it's effectively at rest. Like the photon in the mirror-box which adds mass to the system. Only there is no box. The photon is trapped in a box of its own making, because displacement current does what it says on the tin. Only we don't call it a photon any more. We call it an electron.

Quote from JohnDuffield

Yes. It's called gamma-gamma pair production. Light interacts with light. I wrote an article about it: http://physicsdetective.com/how-pair-production-works/

In the dual slit experiment.

Mills says that two oppositely circular polarized photons (w/ at least 511keV) superimpose to strike a proton. This results - in his theory - for a volume of space creating the "transition state orbitosphere" where matter and energy are indistinguishable -- space is ringing at its resonant frequency -- interestingly the TSO is made a R= 1/alpha *a0 (bohr radius) . This goes on to make a free electron and positron.

Thus, via the proton collision the linear momentum of the photons is conserved. What do you make of this? Do you have evidence that matter is not involved?

And you say that photons interfere with themeselves, but what do you make of Mills argument that "photons cannot be created or destroyed by superimposing. If this were true, it would be possible to cool a room with illumination. Constructive and deconstructive interference violatest the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics."

Quote from Wyttenbach

The electron has a (1x1)x(0.5x0,5) wave structure what is 3 occupied one hybrid split wave orbits or as Mills would say two photons with one additional locked in. In dense mass we also do call the third wave virtual mass as its the glue (charge related mass) that bends the two original waves. The 3D,t 10 digits exact g-factor calculation is given by Mills chapt. 1 starting at (1.163).

I'm sorry Wyttenback, but the evidence says it's one wave in a double loop. That's why the electron is a spin ½ particle with a g-factor of 2.002319. In electron-positron annihilation we typically see two 511keV gamma photons.

Quote from Wyttenbach

magnetic mass (flux) of course is never at rest. The only thing that may happen is that its envelope stays at a fix point in space. For an electron to get bound it must go into resonance with nuclear flux what is classically interpreted as a potential. This, potential, is a first order approximation only and did lead to a Kindergarden physics model called SM - QED/LQCD etc..

I think the nuclear force is electromagnetic. Bernard Schaeffer has been saying it for years, and I think he's right. I think tThe force that binds a 511keV photon to form it into an electron is electromagnetic too. The question you should ask yourself is this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? I don't think it disappears, it's still there in the photons, but we don't recognise it as such.

Quote from Wyttenbach

But: What I was questioning is: Which mass parts do follow gravitation and to what extent. Gravitation is the electro weak residual force of the 5 rotation strong force coupling and it is only outside a particle a "homogenous" force!

5-rotation strong force coupling? That doesn't sound right. Something as simple as a photon is a concentration of energy, and thus is has a gravitational field. I see it as something like this.

Quote from Navid

Mills says that two oppositely circular polarized photons (w/ at least 511keV) superimpose to strike a proton. This results - in his theory - for a volume of space creating the "transition state orbitosphere" where matter and energy are indistinguishable -- space is ringing at its resonant frequency -- interestingly the TSO is made a R= 1/alpha *a0 (bohr radius) . This goes on to make a free electron and positron. Thus, via the proton collision the linear momentum of the photons is conserved. What do you make of this?

It sounds rather exotic and rather odd to me, Navid. Sorry. A transition state orbitosphere is not something I'm familiar with. As far as I know matter is what we call it when energy moves in a closed path. That's all. That's what de Broglie and Schrodinger talked about. And David Bohm.

Quote from Navid

Do you have evidence that matter is not involved?

Matter is not involved in gamma-gamma pair production. It's called the Breit-Wheeler process. See Kirk McDonald's website which refers to the 1998 PhysicsToday article gamma rays create matter just by plowing into laser light:

Image by Gil Eisner from the November 1997 issue of Photonics Spectra above a brief note about the SLAC experiment

Quote from Navid

And you say that photons interfere with themeselves, but what do you make of Mills argument that "photons cannot be created or destroyed by superimposing. If this were true, it would be possible to cool a room with illumination. Constructive and deconstructive interference violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics."

He's perhaps talking about out-of-phase photons. If you combine a bunch of out-of-phase photons you aren't left with nothing, you end up with something like this:

That apart, gamma-gamma pair production is real. Two 511keV photons interact to become an electron and a positron. The opposite process is annihilation. Energy is converted to matter and vice versa.

I've written an article about Oliver Consa's excellent paper. IMHO it deserves all the publicity it can get: Something is rotten in the state of QED

Quote from JohnDuffield

It sounds rather exotic and rather odd to me, Navid. Sorry. A transition state orbitosphere is not something I'm familiar with. As far as I know matter is what we call it when energy moves in a closed path. That's all. That's what de Broglie and Schrodinger talked about. And David Bohm.

Matter is not involved in gamma-gamma pair production. It's called the Breit-Wheeler process. See Kirk McDonald's website which refers to the 1998 PhysicsToday article gamma rays create matter just by plowing into laser light:

The TSO is a closed path. So it meets your criteria. It's an odd concept because you've never learned about it - but its not advanced math its a physical model.

Looking into McDonald in 2018 he said this:

This experiment has never been repeated, and we welcome future efforts to confirm and extend our results.

As for the Breit-Wheeler process, this seems to be the case.

Although the pure photon–photon Breit–Wheeler process was one of the first sources of pairs to be described, its experimental validation has yet to be accomplished.

I don't know enough about QED or experimental physics to really understand how plausible this is and what flaws they might be here.

However, by conservation of energy and momentum the statement that this is plausible seems weak. How do you answer this? How do photons annihilate, the energy part makes sense, but where does the lost momentum go? This doesn't add up.

I have noticed that even though trace nuclear events occur, more transmutations happen in some experiments than can be accounted for by excess energy out or the radiation/particles released. And it makes sense cause these nuclear reactions are supposed to take a lot more energy to occure.

I propose that what Mills explains is very close to the truth, but what Dufours and colleagues have shown that shrunken bonds could release energy for metal pico-hydride reactions too. This combination, two manifestation fit a larger swath of data. I would also perpose that lower states aren't as stable for single H atoms, the extended nuclear fields hold the nucleon of the other atom in a balance with pushing forces. So either an H2*or H/D*+ transition metal.

DufourJhydrogentr.pdf

1995Dufour-MeasurementOfExcessEnergy.pdf

Quote from Navid

The TSO is a closed path. So it meets your criteria. It's an odd concept because you've never learned about it - but its not advanced math its a physical model.

OK noted.

Quote from Navid

Looking into McDonald in 2018 he said this: This experiment has never been repeated, and we welcome future efforts to confirm and extend our results.

That was the impure Breit-Wheeler process that involved gamma photons and laser light. See https://www.imperial.ac.uk/new…y-turn-light-into-matter/ for something more recent.

Quote from Navid

As for the Breit-Wheeler process, this seems to be the case. Although the pure photon–photon Breit–Wheeler process was one of the first sources of pairs to be described, its experimental validation has yet to be accomplished. I don't know enough about QED or experimental physics to really understand how plausible this is and what flaws they might be here.

Yes you do. You know about electron-positron annihilation to gamma photons. Gamma-gamma pair production is the reverse process.

Quote from Navid

However, by conservation of energy and momentum the statement that this is plausible seems weak. How do you answer this? How do photons annihilate, the energy part makes sense, but where does the lost momentum go? This doesn't add up.

The photons don't annihilate. The electron and the positron annihilate. When they do energy and momentum are conserved. The same is true for the reverse operation. Conservation of energy and momentum always applies. That's why a single photon can't turn into an electron and a positron. You need matter for pair production from one photon. But not from two.

By the way, that video looks wrong. Electron positron annihilation results in two (or more) photons, not one.

Quote from JohnDuffield

OK noted.

That was the impure Breit-Wheeler process that involved gamma photons and laser light. See https://www.imperial.ac.uk/new…y-turn-light-into-matter/ for something more recent.

Yes you do. You know about electron-positron annihilation to gamma photons. Gamma-gamma pair production is the reverse process.

The photons don't annihilate. The electron and the positron annihilate. When they do energy and momentum are conserved. The same is true for the reverse operation. Conservation of energy and momentum always applies. That's why a single photon can't turn into an electron and a positron. You need matter for pair production from one photon. But not from two.

By the way, that video looks wrong. Electron positron annihilation results in two (or more) photons, not one.

Display More

Truth really it's a two way street. photons can condense to electron/positron and the same can annialate to pairs again. Navid Yes, photons can't decay, conservation of energy and momentum stands.